evaluation of increasing food and livelihood security in the occupied palestinian territories

8/7/2019 Evaluation of Increasing Food and Livelihood Security in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

1/40

Evaluation of Increasing Food andLivelihood Security in the OccupiedPalestinian Territories

Full Report

Oxfam GB Programme Evaluation

October 2008

Commissioned by: Oxfam GB

Evaluators: Shuaa Marrar, Obed Diener, OsamaJafari, May Nazzal, Maha Abu Ramadan


2/40

Evaluation Team:

Shuaa Marrar Senior Evaluator

Obed Diener Evaluation Consultant

Osama Jafari Evaluation Specialist Hebron

May Nazzal Evaluation Specialist Jordan Valley Area

Maha Abu Ramadan Evaluation Specialist Gaza Strip


3/40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Background 1

2. Methodology and Evaluation Approach 33. Findings and Conclusions 3

4. Case Studies 24

5. Lessons Learned 28

6. Conclusion and Recommendations 30

7. Annexes 32

Annex A: Evaluation Methodology

Annex B: Lists of Meetings and Participants


4/40

ACRONYMS

ECHO: European Commissions Humanitarian Aid Office

ESDC: The Economic and Social Development Center

MOA: Ministry of Agriculture (Palestinian Authority)

NIS: New Israeli Shekel

OPT: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Oxfam GB: Oxfam Great Britain

UAWC: Union of Agricultural Work Committees


5/40

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Oxfam GB staff for their wholehearted professional support and

facilitation of the evaluation process: Mohamad Sawafta, Food Security & LivelihoodsDeputy Country Coordinator; Mostafa Tamaizh, Food Security Project Officer/West Bank;

and Elena Qleibo, Food Security Project Officer/Gaza.

Alongside their objectivity and professionalism in supporting the evaluation process, theyensured timely, quality facilitation and input on meetings, interviews, and focus groupdiscussions. They also provided all documentation needed, feedback on methodology used

and made themselves available to Riyada Consultants throughout the process, on top oftheir heavy workload.

We are also grateful for the welcoming and active participation of other key stakeholders,which ensured this comprehensive final evaluation was completed in a timely and qualitativemanner. We extend our thanks and acknowledgments to the beneficiaries who participated

in focus groups and group interviews in each location, and the local partner representatives,

who shared their insights in interviews.


6/40

1

1. Background

1.1. Overview

With funds from the European Commission, Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid -ECHO, Oxfam GB has implemented a Food Security Project entitled Increasing Food andLivelihood Security in the OPT with focus on three locations: South Hebron, Jordan Valleyand Gaza Strip. The specific villages in which the project was implemented included the

following:

! South Hebron: El-Thaheriya, El- Samou, and Masafar Bani Naim.

! Jordan Valley: Bardala, Ein Al Beida, Kardala (North), and Jeftlik (centre).

! Gaza: Jabalaya, Khan Yonis, and Rafah Governorate including Refugee Camp (South).

The objective of the project was to increase and diversify household food and cash incomesources of vulnerable households in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Project activities were:

1. Bee keeping;2. Livestock;3. Roof-top gardening and rabbit raising;

4. Cooperative capacity building;5. Greenhouse and Open Field Agriculture;

The number of direct beneficiaries reached 555 households with an estimated number of

around 4,400 beneficiaries. The projects were implemented in partnership with three localpartners: UAWC in Hebron, ESDC: Jordan Valley and MA'AN in Gaza.

The Oxfam GB has requested an evaluation with the purpose to assess the projectsappropriateness and impact on the beneficiaries and to guide similar future food securityinterventions in the OPT. This proposal is being submitted in response to that request.

1.2 Objectives of the Evaluation

The general objective is to provide an independent and impartial evaluation of the project.

There are three specific objectives, as follows:

To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability ofthe intervention;

To measure the degree of integration of the following cross cutting issues duringthe life of the project: link with development (LRRD), gender, rights-based andparticipatory approach; and

Act as a learning experience for the Oxfam GB team in the OPT.

The target audience for this report includes a range of stakeholders:

Oxfam GB team in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza;


7/40

2

Oxfam GB management team in Jerusalem;

Oxfam GB Regional Management Team in Oxford;

Local project partners;

General Directorate of Humanitarian Aid ECHO; and

Other organizations working in food security and livelihoods.


8/40


9/40

4

In focus groups, participants from Jeftlik and Ein Al Beida confirmed that they wereconsulted from the time of the needs assessment and that the three project interventions inthe areaopen field agriculture, greenhouse agriculture, and livestockwere addressingthe three top priorities for the area. Farmers commented that they were even consulted as to

the types of seeds they would like to receive, as well as their needs in terms of equipment(irrigation, other infrastructure) and they appreciated that aspect of the project.

Photo 1: Agriculture Beneficiary, Jordan Valley

3.1.3 LivestockThe projects livestock interventions were also designed based on a participatory needsassessment. The activity consisted of livestock distribution and technical assistance for 80

beneficiary households from the Hebron area of the South West Bank, including thecommunities of Masafer Bani Naim, Al Samou, and Al Thaheriya. In addition, some livestockwas distributed in the Jordan Valley area for a limited number of beneficiaries. Althoughsupport for small ruminants was clearly needed in the Jordan Valley, project design could

have better taken into account environmental conditions and the previous experience ofbeneficiaries, which raised issues during project implementation and negatively impacted the

effectiveness of the activity.

Beneficiaries from different locations tended to differ in their perceptions of the level of

consultation. Those from Al Samou felt more thoroughly consulted on the project and feltthat the decisions taken by project management were more in line with their preferences. InMasafer Bani Naim, farmers reported being consulted thoroughly on the project through theinterviews and meetings conducted by the team of agricultural work committees regardingthe number and the quality of rams to be provided to the farmers by the project. Theybelieved that the project directly responded to their pressing needs for quality rams

Those from Al Thaheriya, on the other hand, felt somewhat left out of the decision-making

process, although they agreed that they had been consulted during the needs assessmentphase. This may have been due to the fact that the project staff decided which beneficiarieswould take part in livestock and which in bee keeping, according to an assessment of local

conditions.


10/40

5

Livestock activities reached beneficiaries with limited experience in Al Samou and AlThaheriya. Some focus group participants had some knowledge prior to the project, whileothers had none. They felt, however, that the project provided them with the neededknowledge and tools to start such a project. They also found the training to be well organizedand systematic.

In the Jordan Valley, beneficiaries were interested in livestock interventions, and reported

that they had been consulted systematically by ESDC as to their needs and priorities duringthe needs assessment phase of the project. There was some dissatisfaction with the healthof the livestock distributed, which appears to have suffered as a result of the livestock beingtransported from the Hebron area to the Jordan Valley. That risk could have been identified

in advance, and better communicated to beneficiaries.

3.1.4 Roof-top Gardening and Rabbit Raising

This set of activities aimed to allow urban Gaza residents to improve their food security byraising rabbits as a source of food and income generating activity. 255 householdsparticipated in the rabbit raising activity. Of those, 51 households were also provided with

supplies and training to assist them in cultivating produce on their rooftops, while could aid infeeding the rabbits. The rooftop gardening activity targeted the poorest households, as it wasforeseen that they would face difficulties purchasing fodder for the rabbits.

This idea was an innovative attempt to address food security issues, based on Oxfamsexperience with previous projects of a similar nature. Thus the idea was initiated by Oxfamrather than simply through beneficiaries prioritization. The result was that beneficiariesparticipated who had no prior experience in rabbit raising or rooftop cultivation. In focus

groups, beneficiaries from Abu Tuima and Beit Lahya agreed that they would never haveconsidered such a project on their own, for two reasons:

1) lack of start-up capital and

2) in most cases, lack of experience with rabbits or agriculture.

However, in most cases, beneficiaries believe that the activities introduced were relevant to

their needs in terms of household food security.

Yousef Najjar of Beit Lahya commented: As for the roof-top cultivation, I had not seen itbefore. I was introduced to it through this project, therefore it would have been difficult forme to think of it on my own. I consider it to be a new and wonderful experience.

3.1.5 Cooperative Capacity Building

The project worked with four groups on improving their capacities as cooperatives. Two were

womens groupsthe Jeftlik Womens Group and the Ein Beyda Handicrafts societyandtwo were mens groupsthe North Bardala Agricultural Cooperative and the Kardala Green

Agricultural Cooperative.

Experience from elsewhere in OPT shows that agricultural cooperatives can be an effectivevehicle for collective action on the part of small farmers. In focus groups, members agreed

that the trainings offered by the project were in line with their most urgent organizationaldevelopment needs.

3.2 Efficiency:

Table 1 below shows the budget allotted to each activity, with the number of householdsbenefiting and the cost per household.


11/40

6

Table 1: Project Activities and Costs

Activity Provisional Budget(EURO)

# Beneficiaries Cost/beneficiaryhousehold

(EURO)Bee keeping 46,905

(includes 3,555 oftraining costs notincluded in theprocurement plan)

50 households 938

Livestock 79,125 80 households 989

Roof-top gardening 36.814 (includes trainingcosts of 2,614 notincluded in procurementplan)

51 households 736

Rabbit raising 70.441 (includingtraining, excluding

administrative costs)

255 households 276

Greenhouse and OpenField Agriculture

166,600 (includes21,000 of training costs,not included in theprocurement plan)

140 households 1190

Cooperative capacitybuilding

25,200 (7,200 forpackaging andprocessing included inthe procurement plan,10,000 for training, and2,000 for market fairparticipation)

4 cooperativesBardalah: 82 membersJiftlek: 25 membersKardalah: 52 membersEin Al Beida: 63members

113

From the above, we can see that the majority of activities had a similar cost per beneficiary,with the exception of the rabbit raising which was significantly less than the others.

The most costly activities per beneficiary were the Greenhouse and Open Field Agriculture

(1,190) followed by the households participating in both Rabbit Raising and RooftopGardening (1,012), Livestock (989), Bee Keeping (938), and Rabbit Raising only (276).

The cooperative activity is difficult to compare to the others as it did not take the form ofdirect support to households. The cooperative capacity building activity allotted 6,300 percooperative, or 113 per household, counting the households of all cooperative members as

beneficiaries.

In partner interviews and focus groups, few concerns were raised about timeliness and costof inputs. It appears that the project had the necessary bidding and tendering systems in

place to perform due diligence on suppliers.

3.3 Effectiveness:

Implementation of the project appears to have gone fairly smoothly, with few delays or majorproblems in execution. From the interviews with management and partners and the focusgroup discussions with beneficiaries, it is clear that some program activities experiencedmore challenges than others in implementation.


12/40

7

Monitoring SystemThe projects monitoring system was, overall, very strong and substantive. Oxfam used amix of focus groups and interviews throughout the period of implementation to identifyprogress toward meeting objectives and identify issues arising during implementation, fromthe perspective of the beneficiaries.

Oxfam conducted a baseline survey in May 2008, followed by another in September 2008.

The surveys assessed the food insecurity of beneficiary households by identifying mainsources of income and level of income, main expenses, "coping strategies, and theagricultural situation in the targeted area.

The project prepared a Monitoring Plan for the Hebron region that outlined how indicatorswould be measured for each project activity and location. The plan also specified what focus

group discussions and interviews would be conducted, with whom, and identified theobjectives of each. Separate discussions were held with men, women, and children to gather

information from different perspectives within the household. The project also designedcustomized monitoring sheets for the Goat and Sheep Rearing and Bee Keeping activities in

South West Bank.

In Gaza, Oxfams partner, the Maan Center, was largely responsible for monitoring. Maanconducted a baseline survey using questionnaires, submitted monthly and quarterly reports,and held workshops with beneficiaries to help evaluate the project. Maan submitted abaseline study analysis report titled Increasing Food and Livelihood Security in theOccupied Palestinian Territory, in September 2008. The report provided a comprehensive

picture of changes in the lives of beneficiary households over the course of the project, interms of household income and expenditure, food sources and food availability, and copingmechanisms.

The principal weakness of Oxfams monitoring system was that it did not track the specific

target indicators as outlined in the proposal. The Expected Results were phrased in terms ofsimilar types of indicators (household food consumption, income) were measured, but notalways in a way that was comparable to the target indicators.

For example, the proposal lists two specific indicators under Expected Result 2: Poor

beneficiary households will increase cash income by 20% from the sale of the food producedwith project activities.

One of the indicators is: At least 50% of beneficiaries engaged in household food productionreport a 20% increase in cash income as a result of project activities by the end of theproject.

The Maan Monitoring Report of September 2008 measured households increase in income,but reported the results in terms of an overall average, i.e. there was an average increase inmonthly income from 505 NIS to 520 NIS (a 3% increase). Thus although we know that therewas a slight increase in income overall, we cannot say whether or not the target indicator

was met.

Such discrepancies can also be seen with many of the other specific indicators. Please seethe discussion of impacts in section 3.4 below for a more detailed discussion.

To avoid such confusion in terms of project monitoring and evaluation, we would recommend

that the monitoring reports be designed in a way that clearly indicates performance againstspecific target indicators in project proposals. If, during implementation, it becomes clear thatthose indicators do not adequately reflect the reality on the ground and the aims of theproject, they should be revised in consultation with the donor.


13/40

8

3.3.1 Bee Keeping

The bee keeping activity was effective in identifying interested households and providing

accessible and useful training. Results monitoring indicated that most households were ableto produce substantial amounts of honey during the implementation period and planned to

continue with bee keeping (See Impact and Sustainability sections below). It appears thatthe activity could have been made more effective with additional follow-up technical supportto trainees; of course that would have had budgetary implications.

In the focus group discussion, participants impressions were very positive about the project

staff, and their responsiveness. They reported that a knowledgeable engineer was assignedto follow up the project; he was very concerned about the project and its success.

Participants received theoretical and practical training on bee keeping, including topics such

as how to divide the bee hives to increase the number. In Oxfams Baseline Report ofSeptember, 80% of beneficiaries rated the trainings as Excellent, with only 1.3% sayingthat they added no new skills.

They felt that the training was mostly theoretical in nature, and also suggested that theyneeded more training as well as on-the-job support, due to the fact that for most of them thisis their first time in bee keeping. They did not have the experience or skills for such projects

and needed to know more about the diseases and how to deal with them.

The primary challenges to implementation cited by beneficiaries were primarily due toenvironmental factors outside the projects control:

Harmful insects;

Lack of necessary medicines and chemicals to confront the insect attacks on the bee

hives;

In Thahiriya the hives were attacked by wild birds;

Lack of the necessary medicines;

Lack of boxes and frames for the increased hives;

Sharing of the equipment and clothes (especially after an increase in the number of

hives); and

Additional expenses to buy the frames, boxes and the fodder.

They mentioned that it would have been helpful had the project provided more technicalsupport in areas such as dividing the hives and taking care of queens, followed up with field

visits to the project site, and distributed informational booklets on bee keeping.

3.3.2 Agriculture:

Implementation of the agriculture activity in the Jordan Valley went relatively smoothly. Thetrainings and extensions received generally positive ratings from participants (80.4% Good)

during the Baseline Survey of September.

In focus group discussions, participants from Jeftlik and Ein Beida were emphatically positiveabout the effectiveness of project activities. They felt that the extension work carried out wasvery important to them. One participant noted that the trainers experience in plantcomposition was particularly useful, and that beneficiaries had been able to successfully

apply the knowledge gained from him.


14/40


15/40

10

First, beneficiaries asserted that the project is a failure and that providing two sheep perhousehold was not enough given the large number of household members in Jordan Valleyareas. They also argued that recipient families were very poor to be able to maintain andpurchase the necessary fodder and medicine to the sheep given to them.

Others complained about the type of sheep they received, saying that the local breeds thatwere distributed produce milk for 1 3 months per year only, while the Mikhla sheep or

Samar goats would produce milk throughout the year.

One beneficiary said: The sheep I received were not productive and not in good health. Isold them and bought five instead, paying the difference, and I bought a Samar that is more

productive all over the year. I think the merchant from whom the sheep was bought hasdeceived them, all of them were either old or ill.

Others reported that they had achieved success with what they received.

Fodder was another issue raised by the farmers, who said that the project did not provide

enough and that they had to begin purchasing fodder to feed the livestock, before receivingan economic benefit from the activity.

Veterinary service is also a concern, as farmers will need to begin paying those expensesfollowing the end of the project, which will severely cut into or exceed the additional incomethey are realizing.

Oxfam management responded to the complaints as follows:

Number of sheep: because diversification of food sources was the primary goalrather than income generation, the number of sheep per household was adequate.

Because many extended families graze their flocks together, the impact of adding aram to the flock will take time to develop.

Type of sheep: The Mikhla variety of sheep requested by some farmers are

typically used in more complex and technologically advanced settings and are notwell adapted to local environmental conditions. During the needs assessment phase,beneficiaries expressed a preference for sheep rather than goats and Oxfamtechnical staff agreed that sheep were better suited to the environment. There are nobreeds of sheep or goats capable of providing milk throughout the year in currentconditions in the Jordan Valley.

Health of the sheep: Oxfam staff responded that they had strict specifications for thesheep that were purchased, and that a veterinarian checked them all prior to

distribution. The health of the sheep suffered as a result of being transferred fromHebron to the Jordan Valley, which has very different climactic conditions.

Expenses of fodder and veterinary care: To some degree, the expenses could not

have been anticipated due to a rapid rise in the cost of fodder over the course of theprogram. (an increase of over 800 NIS/ton according to Oxfam). Even long-established and relatively prosperous herding households have been forced toreduce their flocks due to the challenging environment. Staff noted that it is a lesson

learned that sheep should not be given to the poorest families as they lack theminimum resources required to maintain them.


16/40

11

Photo 2: Focus Group with Livestock Beneficiaries, Jordan Valley

HebronThe partner in the South, UAWC, reported that project activities were effective in enhancing

the diet or income of beneficiary households, and in transferring skills through the trainings.No delays in implementation were reported. The UAWC was generally positive about the

relationship with Oxfam, although they would have liked to see more attention given tocapacity building for UAWC as the local partner.

The effectiveness of project trainings was rated higher in Masafer Bani Naim than in the

Jordan Valley, according to Oxfams Baseline Report. 57.7% of respondents rated thetrainings Good, vs. 30.8% Excellent and only 7.7% Medium.

Like the livestock activity beneficiaries in the Jordan Valley, those in Masafer Bani Naim

involved in the goat and ram rearing activity had numerous complaints. The most prominentwere:

1. The number of distributed rams (one ram per farmer) is small relative to the size of the

herds of the farmers, thus improving production may take years.

2. The rams that were distributed faced difficulty in adapting to the local environment and

particularly grazing outside. The farmers called them the spoiled rams. They are notable to walk long distances with the rest of the herd to graze, which is necessary in many

cases. Farmers had limited experience of how to deal with those issues.

Factors external to the project that were cited by the farmers included:

1. Marketing is a problem. Farmers tend to sell sheep to traders at low prices or inexchange for fodder, which is costly at certain times of the year. Farmers attributed thisto market manipulation on the part of the traders; but it is less likely a character issue onthe part of the traders than the predictable result of a weak bargaining position on the

part of the farmers.

2. There is no market for fresh milk or for sheeps wool. Thus the farmers must turn milk

into yogurt (Jameed), which is less profitable. They also burn the sheeps wool aftersheering it.


17/40

12

With respect to the issues with the rams, researchers noted that only one of the 14participants in the discussion had gone to the local partner UAWC for guidance. The otherssaid that they were not aware of what other services the UAWC could provide, did not knowthe location of the organization and did not know the contact person or the employees of the

organization. This lack of knowledge was also the case for the beneficiaries from Al Samou.

From the UAWCs perspective, there were two major challenges to implementation:

1. An inadequate budget was allocated to the veterinary medicines and guidance, whichforced most of the beneficiaries to purchase it at their own expense; and

2. The level of assistance for the selected was too low; distributing 3 sheep per family does

not meet the needs of the large extended families in the area. The limit was imposed bythe donor, but the partner would recommend adjusting it.

Oxfam managements responses were same as the above as regards that number of sheep

distributed, which they believed to be quite adequate relative to the size of beneficiaries

herds.


Implementation of these activities went well overall but faced two major challenges. First, thetrainings on rabbit care could have been more oriented toward practical elements, and/or

extended for an additional period of time. Second, the timing of the rabbit distribution proveddifficult, due to weather conditions in July and August. The rooftop gardening activity

generally went more smoothly.

In terms of the trainings, most beneficiaries felt that the trainings received were helpful butthat they could have been more oriented to practical aspects rather than theory or,

alternatively, that there should have been more follow-up to address problems that arose inimplementation.

One said: We received a 12-day theoretical training, but when we tried to implement the

training we faced issues that required consultancies particularly since we had notimplemented such activities before. The implementation differed from the theory. When wetried to implement the training we faced many problems which the theoretical training did notaddress such as the lack of medicines in the market and by the donor agency.

Another had a slightly different take, saying: Most of the issues trained on were actuallyimplemented. The theoretical training was sufficient as theory but we need follow up during

the implementation as some problems surfaced during the implementation that could have

obstructed the implementation of the project such as rabbits suffering from a certain diseaseand the inability of the beneficiary to provide the proper medication due to its unavailability inthe market or its high cost.

In contrast to that sentiment, members of the Khan Younis focus group praised the support

and follow-up provided by the project, saying that they obtained the numbers of the cellulartelephones of all the trainers, who were ready to answer any inquiries and provide soundadvice.

Participants in the various Gaza focus groups were asked to describe criticisms they had ofthe activity. The most common responses were:

Trainings were not oriented enough toward practical elements.


18/40

13

The rabbit project was implemented in July and August, which are bad months for rabbitbreeding, due to heat and diseases.

Cages and other materials were of poor quality.

Other major challenges faced by beneficiaries included the high cost of medications, which

are scarce in Gaza due to the blockade, and the rising cost of feed for the rabbits.

There were generally positive comments about the rooftop gardening activity, although a

number of groups mentioned issues with soil quality, as the soil in some cases developed agreen color and becoming less healthy for the plants.

Maan staff concurred that soil should have been of better quality, as well as the irrigationnetworks. They also suggested that the number of training hours be increased to 12 hoursfor both aspects of the program.

3.3.5 Cooperative Capacity Building

Of all the project activities, the cooperative capacity building appears to have had thesmoothest implementation, judging by project reports and discussions with the partnerorganization and beneficiaries.

Womens group members reported that they were very satisfied with the training coursesthey had received, mentioning in particular: management that focused on good governance,leadership, transparency and accountability. Participants also valued trainings on marketing,accounting, annual planning and the media. Overall, they agreed that the time frame was

suitable and the trainers were competent.

One beneficiary said: After the training on accounting, we started to apply the financialmanagement principles including receipts, book keeping, issuing checks. We also started to

document all board meetings and in the elections that took place in April 19th, 08, organizedand completed files were handed over to the new board as Oxfam project supported the

group with files and procedures for organizing them.

Photo 3: Focus Group with Cooperative Members

The mens group also found the trainings they received from the project to be useful, citingthe trainings on accounting, proposal writing, management and good governance,


19/40

14

investment and group purchasing, marketing, media and gender. The time frame wasorganized according to the preference of each group and there were no complaints in thatregard.

As a result of the trainings, said one member: We initiated contact with a number of

organizations who did not work with us before, we conducted a TV interview with a localstation and spoke about the conditions of the agriculture in the Jordan Valley. We also

started to organize our accounting records and most importantly we started writing proposalsby ourselves and received funding accordingly.

Another added: The training was very useful, we started to develop daily and monthly

reports, organized agenda and meeting minutes, something we did not do beforeAfter thetrainings we were encouraged to increase our membership, we increased it from 46 before

the project to 80 after the project. Members of the other cooperative also reported anincrease in membership over the course of the project.

One constraint on the effectiveness of the cooperatives intervention was pointed out by

ESDC, Oxfams partner in the Jordan Valley. Because of ECHOs funding cycle, the projectbegan August 1, whereas the agricultural season begins June 1. As a result, it was difficultto have an immediate impact when the season was already underway. This is of courseoutside the control of anyone working on the project but should be noted nonetheless.

3.4 Impact of the Operation

The projects overall objective, expected results, and indicators were as follows:

Operation specific objective:To increase and diversify household food and cash income sources of vulnerablehouseholds in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

The quantitative and qualitative evidence suggests that the project achieved the main

objective, at least for the duration of the interventions. Performance on specific indicatorswas mixed, as indicated by the tables below.

Expected Result 1:Very poor households increase food consumption by 30%, through improved household food

production.

Target Indicators Verified Results Source of Verification

At least 70% of beneficiaryhouseholds of rooftop gardenswill double their daily vegetableintake three months after thesetting of the garden.

On average, beneficiariesincreased their vegetable intakeby 25% over the course of theproject.

Maan Monitoring Report,September 2008

80% of beneficiaries of rabbitdistribution increase consumptionof meat by 30% by the tenthmonth of the project.

By end of project, beneficiariesaveraged 1 kg/week of rabbitconsumption. Prior to project, theydid not consume rabbit meat.


60% of the 80 beneficiaryhouseholds consume dairyproducts at least 4 times a weekfour months after the distribution

of the small ruminants

55.6% of small ruminantbeneficiary households reportedan increase in consumption ofmilk and dairy products.

Oxfam Baseline Report,September 2008

85% of beneficiary households of 90.9% of bee keeping beneficiary Oxfam Baseline Report,


20/40

15

beekeeping consume honey atleast 4 times a week two monthsafter the distribution of thebeehives

households reported an increasein honey consumption.

September 2008

The project did not report on households overall level of food consumption, but did track

consumption of specific foods such as meat, dairy products, and honey consumption. As canbe seen from the table above, the household-level activities succeeded in boostinghouseholds consumption of goods that they produced with assistance from the project.

Expected Result 2:

Poor beneficiary households will increase cash income by 20% from the sale of the foodproduced with project activities.


At least 80% of beneficiaries of

home gardens, rabbits, ruminantsand beekeeping activities are ableto exchange or sell 30% of theproduction in local markets within12 months of the project.

By Activity:

Ruminants: 84.6%Agriculture and Cooperatives:83.6%Bee Keeping: 12.7%Rabbit Raising and RooftopGardens: 12.5%

Maan Monitoring Report,

September 2008

At least 50% of beneficiariesengaged in household foodproduction report a 20% increasein cash income as a result ofproject activities by the end of theproject.

The average increase in monthlyincome was 3% (505 NIS to 520NIS).


Again, we do not have data on the cash income gains for all beneficiary households. Therewas a greater level of engagement with the market on the part of the beneficiaries oflivestock, agriculture, and cooperatives activities. For the bee keeping, rabbit raising, and

rooftop garden, beneficiaries, the data from monitoring reports and qualitative informationfrom focus groups suggest that the more important impacts of the project were the increase

in and diversification of food consumption, as noted above, and the savings householdsgained from producing goods for themselves that they otherwise would have needed topurchase. Please see the activity-by-activity analysis later in this section for an explanationof how this conclusion was reached.

Expected Result 3:

Small-scale farmers in the Jordan Valley improve their agricultural practices and farming

income.


90% of the targeted 140beneficiary households improveagricultural managementpractices by the end of theproject.

86.7% of households reportedimproved practices


At least 70% of beneficiaryhouseholds are able to increasetheir income by at least 30%,

through selling farm produce,within 12 months.

By Activity:Ruminants: 84.6% of householdsAgriculture and Cooperatives:

83.6%



21/40

16

75% of targeted cooperatives inthe Jordan Valley are involved incollective buying and are able todecrease costs by 20% by theend of the project.

Cooperatives reported a savingsof 20.9% in purchasing costs.


As the table shows, the project did very well in meeting the indicators across the boardunder Expected Result 3.

A more detailed analysis of project impacts, divided by activity, is presented below.

3.4.1 Bee Keeping

For the most part, the bee keeping activity enabled beneficiaries to produce honey for theiruse within their own household. The principal benefit of the activity was to providehouseholds access to a nutritious natural sweetener at no cost. In some cases, householdsare developing the commercial potential of the activity and generating income.

According to Oxfams Baseline Report from September, the greatest percentage ofbeneficiaries produced 11 kg of honey over the course of the project. Considering that themarket value of honey is 120 NIS/kg, the amount produced represented a sizable value forthe households. Less than 13% of households sold honey in the market; of those who did,most sold less than 7 kg.

In focus groups, beneficiaries reported that they used the honey for domestic consumption,exchange, and gifts to family members and neighbors. A few also sell honey in the market,

commenting that it is profitable and they want to increase their production for marketing inthe future.

All focus group participants considered the activity as complementary to family income.

Some worked on the activity after their main job ended for the day. For the project tobecome the main income source for the household, the person needs to own at least 20 30 hives.

3.4.2 Agriculture

The key impacts of the agriculture activities can be summarized as:

Increasing vegetable production;

Stimulating reclamation of agricultural land; Improving pesticide use; and

Introducing new techniques such as composting and solar sterilization.

In Oxfams post-survey, 86.7% of agriculture beneficiaries reported an improvement invegetable production, and nearly 80% reported an increase of 15-20%. When asked to

name the primary benefits of the project, 87% cited the improvement in agriculturalmanagement practices, 63% reported an increase in the amount of vegetables sold, and80% reported an increase in household vegetable consumption.

In focus groups, Jordan Valley farmers reported that the primary impact of the project was toallow them to reclaim additional dunums of land for agriculture. The farmers in most cases

were already in a position to provide a diverse food basket for their families, so their lives didnot improve greatly in that regard. They said that the projects contribution to their level ofincome had so far been minimal.


22/40

17

All participants agreed that their use of pesticides had improved: and they decreased theamount used from 3-5 times, and thus the products are healthier. A member of the focusgroup discussion with Jeftlik and Ein Beyda beneficiaries stated: We learned about thesafety measures when using pesticides and chemicals, through rationalizing the useaccording to the information we received in the training, we started to save on the costs and

produce a better quality.

He added: The compost project was very useful, since we no longer need to import it fromIsrael, and we started a compost project for our cooperative as an income generation projectand to save costs for member farmers.

Another participant said: We beneficial from solar sterilization which is a natural and costeffective method.

Rajab stated: Due to the project support I managed to expand my greenhouse agriculture

from 2 dunums to 6 dunums and this has increased my income as greenhouse agriculture ismore profitable than the open field and less risky.

Researchers noted that these beneficiaries already own relatively large pieces of land andhave established commercial relationships and marketing channels: last year they tradedalmost 80% of their production to Israel and about 20% to the West Bank.

3.4.3 Livestock

The most important impacts of the livestock intervention were:

1. Increased household consumption of milk and dairy products;

2. Cost savings that supported households overall level of resources and could beused to purchase other goods;

3. Increased knowledge of how to care for livestock.

Oxfams baseline survey of participants from Hebron and the Jordan Valley in September

2008 revealed differences between the two locations. In general, Hebron beneficiariesreported a greater level of benefits. The data in the table below is taken from that report.1

Table 2: Benefits to Households, Livestock Beneficiaries in the West Bank

% of households

Benefits Hebron Jordan Valley Overall

Increased meat consumption 19.7 2.2 10.95

Became better able to spend on other foodand non-food items 39.1

35.837.45

Milk consumption increased 62.4 40.8 51.6

Households income increased 36.3 9.7 23

Consumption of dairy products increased 58.4 40.8 49.6

Improved its resources and copingmechanisms

88.463.5

75.95

The table shows that Hebron beneficiaries were substantially more likely to see increasedmeat consumption, milk consumption, and income, as compared to those in the JordanValley.

1Baseline Survey Report, Oxfam, September 2008, pg. 29.


23/40

18

In Masafer Bani Naim, beneficiaries reported that the project has added new knowledge,techniques and ways for raising livestock and they appreciated that as they felt that the newknowledge has improved their performance. They stated that they would like additional andfuture similar advice on new techniques and tools.

In terms of social and economic impacts, Masafer Bani Naim participants reported that theproject did not change their patterns of consumption of milk or meat, as they always have

consumed what they needed from milk as well as the sufficient quantities of meat and soldthe surplus. The families have been raising livestock for a long time and it is their mainsource of food security. So far, the number of livestock families keep has not increased, asthere are no newborn offspring yet.

Beneficiaries from Al Thaheriya and Al Samou reported that the economic impact of the

project was so far not so great as to change the pattern of economic activity for thehousehold or open up new investment opportunities. Basically, it has barely covered the

needs of the families for milk and dairy and thus is a subsistence level activity, rather than anincome generating activity, which would not be viable at the current scale.

Photo 4: A Beneficiary's Sheep, Jordan Valley

On a more positive note, beneficiaries reported that the project gave them experience, and

additionally generated interest in raising sheep as a way to supplement their households

food security level. Previously, they would not have seen this as an option.

The families will continue to look for alternative and additional income sources to cover fortheir needs. It is likely that they will also try to maintain the project at the current size, as it is

costly to expand given that they will need to purchase the fodder, the veterinary services andother costs of electricity and water on their own after the end of the project.

In general, the project has not raised incomes: rather, it has provided for some basic needs,

saved the family the cost of buying these products from the market or provided them withbetter nutrition as they would otherwise retreat from buying these products from the market

due to their low income. For instance, in El-Thaheriya the beneficiaries reported that 100%of their needs of the milk and cheese were provided through the project, and in Al Samouthe estimate was 60% to 70%. No one has mentioned selling surplus.


24/40

19

In terms of social impacts, beneficiaries mentioned that they believe that some of theirneighbors envy them because they have benefited from the project; however, they alsomentioned that many of their other family members and neighbors have shown interest inraising livestock which indicates that the project managed to spread the idea to a wideraudience by stimulating them to repeat the experience and provide or save on some of their

basic needs of milk and dairy products.

3.4.4 Rabbit Raising and Roof-top Gardening

The primary impacts of the project can be summarized as:

A small benefit in terms of income generation;

A relaxing activity that gives family members something to do; and A supplement to the familys meat consumption and/or source of quality produce

to supplement the familys diet.

The rabbit distribution project increased the total consumption of meat by households, but itis not clear how many households increased their consumption. Maans monitoring report

from September 2008 shows the number of households reporting consumption of each typeof meat, and the average consumption among those households. See below:

Table 3: Food Items and Quantities Consumed Weekly By Beneficiaries (Pre and Post

Intervention)

Pre Post

# of Beneficiaries # of BeneficiariesFood Item

Count %

Quantity(Kg,

Unit) Count %

Quantity(Kg,

Unit)

Rabbit meat 0 0.00% 0.00 4 39.58% 1.11

Fresh Meat 13 68.75% 1.06 14 56.25% 1.15

Frozen Meat 9 47.92% 1.48 12 62.50% 1.50

Drawing from those figures, we can conclude that 40% of households were able to consumerabbit meat, at an average level of 1.11 Kg/week. The percentage of households consumingother types of fresh meat dropped from 68.75% to 56.25%, but their average quantityconsumed increased by about 8%. The percentage of households consuming frozen meatincreased from 47.92% to 62.5%, while the average quantity consumed remained the same.Overall, the figures suggest an increase in meat consumption among beneficiaries, withrabbit meat supplementing or taking the place of other types of fresh meat for many

households.

As for vegetable consumption, Maans post-survey of beneficiaries of the rabbit raising androoftop garden activities showed a change in weekly vegetable consumption from 2.32 Kg to

2.87, an increase of 19%.

In a focus group discussion, beneficiaries from Abu Tuima group agreed unanimously thatthe project provided them with a source of income. That in turn reduced stress within thehousehold and improved relations.

One beneficiary said: The project helped in minimizing my family problems particularly whenI used to need to purchase house needs and could not find money to do so.


25/40

20

Another added: My relationship with my husband and children has improved since we havea source of income, even if it is minor. This helps in relaxing the family members andminimizing problems.

Members of the Beit Lahya focus group concurred, saying that the project provided a

productive activity for the unemployed men in the households, which reduced conflict.

Along similar lines, one woman from Khan Younis said: The project improved familyrelations. My husband now finds something to do to kill time instead of the constant fightingbecause of the unemployment and the constant boredom. This had its effect on hisrelationship with me and with his children.

Another member of the Khan Younis group noted that the rooftop garden could only

supplement the familys diet, as the amount of vegetables yielded was relatively smallcompared to the needs. She said:

For example, we obtain a kilo of tomatoes a week from the roof-top planting, while the

family needs on daily basis more than that, and the same applies for the other vegetables.

The focus group participants summarized the positive impacts of the project as follows:

1. The project encouraged women participation, and broke the barrier of customs and

traditions that rule the society.

2. A new experiment, as the project worked on improving the relationship of the househead and his family.

3. Provide employment opportunities for the unemployed

4. Limited family problems.

5. Introduction to service organizations.

6. Providing simple expertise in agriculture.

7. Improve relations amongst beneficiaries

8. Transfer of knowledge of agriculture and rabbit raising and the diseases they might

get affected by to other families that lack the expertise or knowledge.

3.4.5 Cooperatives

Principal benefits of the projects work with cooperatives were:

Developing new market linkages through the exhibition;

Improved management capacity; and

Provision of valuable inputs.

In the Jordan Valley focus group discussion, the womens group stated that theirparticipation in the exhibition organized by the project was very useful and they managed tosell all their production. They also made permanent supply contracts and currently make

according to individual orders. They participated in a subsequent exhibition implemented bythe Ministry of Agriculture and they applied the same things they learned from the projectwhich they found very useful. The cooperative is now looking to make contracts at thebusiness level rather than individually.

The Kardala womens group received large orders from a merchant in Um Al Fahem (Arabsof 48) but they could not respond due to the large quantities requested and they did not have

the financial means to fulfill such orders, though this was an excellent business opportunityfor them.


26/40

21

Cooperative members reported that distribution of project assistance in the form of seeds,plastic etc, started in November 2007 at a time when the first season was already over. Theeffects of that assistance will be seen during the current season, but it is still too early toassess its impact in terms of quantities or income from sales. Beneficiaries expect that the

training courses, which included material on improved packaging, will improve sales,however.

All participants praised the Oxfam and the partner, ESDC, for the high quality organization ofthe exhibition and the labeling and packaging possibilities they provided to the women. Theyalso experienced group purchasing in preparation for the exhibitions through purchasing the

needed quantities of milk to make the cheese.

Oxfam also provided support to the Jeftlik womens cooperative in the form of furniture andan electrical generator.

The livestock projects in the Jordan Valley were less successful. Almost all the beneficiaries

stated that the newborn offspring did not survive. This could have been due to feeding orenvironmental and weather conditions.

Oxfams partner in the Jordan Valley, ESDC, echoed the beneficiaries perceptions in manyrespects. ESDCs consider the projects main achievement in the area to be theestablishment of Al Jeftlik Womens Society. According to the partner, the group started offwithout any idea about management issues and quickly they managed to organize

themselves, and with minimal support from the project they have formally registered theSociety. The project supported them with training courses in management and other topics,which assisted them in organizing themselves internally and distributing roles andresponsibilities.

ESDC believes that the capacity building efforts improved the cooperatives performance,which led to an increase in membership, and better chances of getting additional funding

from other donor organizations.

3.5 Sustainability:

3.5.1 Bee Keeping:

It appears likely that the majority of bee keeping beneficiaries will continue to producehoney. For most households, production will be aimed at satisfying household-level demandrather than the broader market. A few beneficiaries expect to further develop the income

generating potential of bee keeping; however, they may need additional training to do so

effectively.

Beneficiaries all stated that their participation in the project, and the training provided, madethem willing to continue their activities after the end of the project.

Some of the participants stated that they will continue, but some hesitated for not trustingtheir experience yet and not being sure if they can deal with upcoming diseases on theirown. They will be more likely to continue if connected to the MOA or other institutions thatcan provide ongoing technical support.

3.5.2 Agriculture:

It is highly likely that the agricultural interventions will yield lasting benefits to the farmers. Asnoted by partner ESDC, there a re a number of factors that would support sustainability of


27/40

22

the Jordan Valley agricultural interventions. First, the farmers have now received support forat least two seasons, which increases the chances that the training received will be put touse. Second, the inputs provided to farmers through the project are relatively durable. Somefarmers were supported with irrigation networks that can be used for the coming 10 years,others with plastic for the greenhouses that will last 3 5 years.

3.5.3 Livestock

Overall, the sustainability of the livestock interventions appears to face major challenges.

ESDCs assessment was that some beneficiaries (an estimated 30%) will continue with their

livestock and increase the numbers they had, but that the majority will most likely not. Themajority of beneficiaries are still too poor to buy the necessary fodder, medicines and

equipment for maintaining the livestock.

In the case of the South West Bank, beneficiaries were asked in focus groups whether theyintended to continue raising livestock beyond the end of the project. Responses varied

between those from Al Samou and Al Thaheriya. In Al Samou they unanimously stated thatthey intend to continue raising livestock even after the end of the project, despite thedifficulties they face which is mainly relating to the cost of fodder and the fact that prices hasincreased over last year. Some beneficiaries in Al Thaheriya mentioned that they are notintending to continue raising livestock after the end of the project because of the cost offodder given their low income as all the beneficiaries are from the unemployed workerscategory and their wives are not working.

In general, women were keener to continue with the livestock after the end of the projectdespite the facts that taking care of the livestock has added to their burden of domestic work.This might be due to the fact that women are generally responsible for the livestock or other

home-based projects as an extension to their domestic work, and at the same time carry

primary responsibility for food and hygiene in the family. Thus they felt the impact of theproject more directly in terms of providing for their families needs of milk, cheese and otherdairy products instead of purchasing them from the market, something they could not have

afforded to do anyway.

Masafer Bani Naim participants mentioned that in the case of many livestock projects,beneficiaries end up simply selling the livestock at the end or after the project, because theycannot handle the costs once the subsidies provided by the project ends. In this particularcase, the farmers did not express an intention to sell their livestock, though they did nottotally exclude the possibility.

Oxfam rightly does not place conditions on farmers to require them to keep the livestock

after the end of the project, because the objective is to help target families cope with thedeteriorating conditions they face. Nevertheless, the prospect of beneficiaries immediatelyselling their livestock raises serious questions about the sustainability of the model,especially given the complex and challenging broader environment for livestock in target

communities.


The sustainability of the gardening and rabbit raising activities is greater but still somewhatquestionable, although beneficiaries expressed an intention to continue. A key challenge to

households will be the affordability of fodder and medication, especially so long as theclosure of Gaza persists.


28/40

23

Beneficiaries point out that the most difficult barriers to overcome with the activities are thestart-up costs involvedsuch as the containers for the gardens and the cages, feed holdersand water holders for the rabbitsand those have already been taken care of through theproject. Thus keeping the activity going may be economically feasible. This is especially truefor the gardening. The rabbit project entails higher operating costs due to the high expenses

related to medications and feed.

In the Abu Taima focus group, participants agreed that they plan to continue to raise rabbitssince as they have great fun with the activity. They also have noticed a benefit in terms ofcreating a potential source of income for them and their families, even if the impact has beenslight so far.

Members of the Khan Younis group noted: We also learned during the training how to make

necessary fertilizer for the soil from the house litter; therefore we do not need large amountsof money to continue planting.

Fadi Hindi of Maan, though overall very supportive of the rabbit project, expressed some

concerns about the sustainability of the rabbit project, saying:

Here we have a few worries. Until now, the beneficiaries have purchased vaccinations andfeed to continue with the project, but there is fear that the necessary vaccinations ormedications necessary for rabbit raising might become unavailable. They attempted inOXFAM to make these vaccinations available through the crossings in Israel, but there wascomplete denial of its entry by the Israelis, which makes us fearful that it will become

unavailable. Also, the rising price of the feed might impose a burden on the beneficiaries.

3.6 Cross Cutting Issue: Gender

As noted above, among the impacts of the activities have been the implications for genderrelations within the household and the broader community. In most of the project activities,

women were targeted as active participants and, for the most part, it appears that theygained a large share of the benefits of the project. In addition to the material benefits to

themselves and their families, women often gained a greater degree of autonomy and, tosome extent, an independent stream of income.

In the Jordan Valley, ESDC reported having greater success with household-level activitiesthat were directly managed by women. Staff noticed that the effect of being able to generateincome gives women more respect and, presumably, more bargaining power within the

household. Activities such as selling rabbits have also given women the opportunity tobecome involved commercially in the public sphere, in some cases for the first time.

Anecdotal evidence from the interviews and focus groups also suggests that the increasedincome from the projects has reduced tensions within households that are often aggravatedby financial pressures, and that is likely to have decreased the occurrence of domesticviolence.

There are some concerns in some cases that the projects have created additional burdens

for women. For example, in the case of the ram and goat rearing activity in Masafer BaniNaim, the women have the greatest level of responsibility for taking care of livestock. That

includes milking, processing cheese or yogurt, and marketing and selling the products on topof their other domestic tasks at home, which are substantial. Often they carry heavy loads of

cheese, milk and yogurt door-to-door to sell to individual consumers in the surroundingcommunities. Nonetheless, women proved to be even more enthusiastic than men about the

activity, due to the increased potential for income generation.


29/40

24

4. Case Studies

For an in-depth view of how the project affected beneficiaries, Riyadas researchers selectedthree workers and their families to participate in case studies that would reflect the situation

for workers before, during, and after the project.

Case Study 1:

Mohammad Siam Stepped Out of Deep Poverty after Participating in the Project

Mohammad Siam is 48 years old and the father of 14 sons and daughters. Like many othersin Gaza, he used to work in Israel and gained enough salary to provide for his family and

even to his extended family. Mohammad suddenly became ill and needed an operation thatprevented him from working inside the green line, and later the Israeli job market was

completely closed to Gazans. He spent all his savings on building his uncompleted house,on his medical operations, and on providing for his family. The expenses have depleted all

his savings, while the family lost its source of livelihood and fell into deep poverty.

Describing his bleak situation before benefiting from the Oxfam project, Mohammad stated:

I became unemployed and depended on the coupons and assistance from differentorganizations and from family members who stopped providing us with assistance after theirsituation deteriorated. I have two married sons, but they both have big families to provide for,one has 5 and the other 6 children. Two of my daughters got married at the age of 16, we

had to agree as we were not able to provide them with a good life. The rest of my childrenare between 7 12 years old and all are in schools. I was not able to provide them with theminimum expenses for their schools.


30/40

25

Mohammad heard about the project from his neighbor who knows his situation well andadvised him to apply. He received support from the project and participated in both top roofgardening and rabbit raising. Project staff, visiting to assess his situation, encouraged him toproceed with the project after he described his feelings of hopelessness and frustration.

Mohammad and his family were excited about the project. He received 4 female rabbits and1 male, a cage, the necessary equipment, fodder, seedlings of different vegetables, andspecial soil for planting and compost. Mohammad stated: After I thought our case is

hopeless and my children were not eating enough, the project came. I took care of therabbits and now have 40 of them. I also planted tomatoes, cucumber, eggplants, pepper,

mint and trees of guava, lemon and figs. We did not need to buy anything from the market.We were eating well and I managed to satisfy all my family needs of vegetables and meat. Iwill start selling from the rabbits soon and will be able to make some income to cover ourother basic needs and will be able to buy the needed fodder and additional cage and

equipment for enlarging the project.

Mohammads wife added: We were saved by the project. We managed to survive our harshconditions and we do not need to beg people for money or food. We were able to feed ourchildren. The project saved us NIS 500 every month, we would never otherwise be able toafford that amount. Mohammads daughter said: I am happy to see my father not angry orstressed. He is more comfortable, provided all what we needed for the school.

Mohammad and his family managed to step out of deep poverty as a result of the project

support. They will continue and will expand their project so that it will start generating themincome to cover their other basic needs. The education and health of the children are less

threatened now.


31/40

26

Case Study 2:

Members of Al Jeftlik Women Society Empowered and Formally Registered theirCooperative with the Support of the Project

Al Jeftlik is a poor, marginalized and an isolated community by the Separation Wall. Al Jeftlik

Women Cooperative started off as a group of 22 women who came together with the aim ofstarting income generation projects for women in the area to contribute to their familyincome.

That became only possible after receiving support from the project, through which trainingcourses were provided to the group on good governance, management, financial

management and bookkeeping, as well as food processing and marketing. Through anotherOxfam project, the group also received hygiene kits and training on health issues.

The members of the group became more self-confident and felt empowered by the project.

With the encouragement of project staff, they formally registered as a cooperative for foodprocessing; the first of its kind in the area. They held elections in 2008, and 5 women wereelected as board members and 19 women are general assembly members. They developedtheir internal bylaws that state a 20 JD fee for annual membership and 400 JDs as the pricefor refundable shares. The members are highly committed, working together very activelyand volunteering their time to achieve success with their new cooperative. The project hasallowed them to begin to prove themselves in the local community and the importance of

their work, starting with the exhibition for their products that was organized by the project.

Haleema, the head of the Board, stated: it was the first time that we think of an exhibition orparticipate in one. It was held in Ramallah, which is far away and required sleeping over,

something we never did before. We managed to convince our families and we managed to

see the benefit of that. We sold all the products we produced for the exhibition. This did notonly have a short-term impact of the income generated from our sales, but also we gainedthe community and family acceptance for our economic activity and mobility. We are now

able to initiate and participate in such activities. When we received an invitation from MOA toparticipate in an exhibition they were organizing, it was straight forward, and we participated

and also succeeded in this exhibition.

The impact of the project did not stop at the formal registration of the cooperative; thewomen members extended their activity to the local community service and established akindergarten that would help other women to engage in income generation activities whiletheir children enjoy spending quality time instead of sitting at home. The whole villageappreciated that.

Another remarkable achievement came when the women members of the cooperativedecided that they need to be active in addressing their community concerns. They organizedthemselves and mobilized other women from the village and went to Ramallah and

organized a sit-in to demand water provision to Al Jeftlik, a major issue in the area. Theyreceived a lot of media attention and talked to reporters about their concerns. They managed

to attract attention to the area and were visited by PA officials, including the Minister ofAgriculture and governor of Jericho. They also were influential in advocating for the re-opening of a health clinic, the only one in the village, after it was closed for a long time.

Zainab, a board member, stated: the project was our starting point. We received high qualitytraining in food processing and thus our products competed in the exhibition and wemanaged to sell all the products. We received orders and currently looking for permanentmarketing channels for our products. Rabia, another member, added: After receiving the


32/40

27

training from the project, we became very organized. We have full documentation andorganized files of financial records, organized meetings with clear agenda and minutes andwe assigned committees for different aspects of the work of the cooperative.

The women members were inspired by the project, and became very enthusiastic and

ambitious. They are very clear about what they needed next; a big kitchen for commercialproduction, refrigerators and storage area, permanent business relations and advanced

management and financial trainings. They mentioned that they are currently contacting otherorganizations that can help them receiving those trainings and implementing the projectsthat would enhance their income generation.


33/40

28

5. Lessons Learned

Over the course of interviews with project staff, local partners, and beneficiaries, a number ofimportant lessons learned emerged, which would be useful in planning future food security

interventions in OPT.

5.1 Roof-top Gardening and Rabbit Raising:

In projects where beneficiaries are performing an income generating activity for the first time,

especially in projects with a moderate degree of complexity such as the rabbit raising, theremust be a strong emphasis on the practical aspects of training, relative to theory. In addition,setting up adequate systems for follow-up with beneficiaries during implementation is crucial,as problems inevitably arise that have not been addressed during trainings. Second, in the

case of rabbit raising projects specifically, more attention should be paid to the time ofdistribution. In this case, some rabbits were distributed at the end of May, and later died due

to the heat and prevalence of disease in June and July.

5.2 Agriculture:

A one-year project cycle of August-July is problematic in the context of the agriculturalseasons in the West Bank, as a new season begins every July. That means that the effects

of project interventions cannot be seen until the following season, in many cases, whichmakes monitoring of results quite challenging. Although changing the start date of projects is

not an option, the seasonal calendar should be taken into account in project planning. Whenpossible, donors should aim for multi-year commitments to agriculture-related interventions.

5.3 Livestock:

Experience demonstrated the challenges of working with livestock in the context of an

emergency project targeting the poorest of the poor. For livestock to make a lastingdifference in the lives of beneficiaries, they must be in a position to sustain a larger herd

through investments on relatively costly recurring expenses such as additional fodder andveterinary care. For many poor households, they are better off selling the livestock once

project assistance is terminated. Even in such cases, there is an economic benefit to thehouseholds, but the activity serves little purpose in terms of development and represents a

highly inefficient way of transferring resources. There may even be negative consequencesfor herding households not participating in the project, in that the selling of livestock bybeneficiaries could contribute to drive down local prices.

Another lesson learned was that it would be better to purchase livestock locally whenpossible. In the case of the Jordan Valley, purchasing livestock from the Hebron area andtransferring it created some problems by placing stress on the animals, which took a toll ontheir health and on reproduction. From that perspective, it would have been better topurchase the livestock from local livestock traders. However, that would require a relaxationof ECHOs standard criteria for the tendering process, which requires purchases to be madefrom registered companies who can provide VAT exemptions, for example.

Given the complex set of challenges facing herders in the West Bankwhich include

restrictions on movement, land confiscation, severe drought, and a lack of support from thegovernment and academiawe believe livestock interventions are better suited to

development-oriented projects with longer time spans, rather than emergency livelihoodsprojects.


34/40

29

5.4 Capacity Building for Cooperatives:

Building market linkages for cooperatives, as the project did, is an essential element of agro-processing and was highly successful in this case. The exhibition that was organized for

cooperatives opened new markets for them, while the training provided by a specialized ISOexpert enabled them to improve product quality, thereby increasing sales and revenue. Suchinterventions should be repeated in future projects supporting cooperatives.


35/40

30

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion

The evidence is clear that project interventions in most cases met the overall objective ofincreasing and diversifying household food and cash income sources of vulnerablehouseholds in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

As the income generating effects of the projects were generally limited, however, the mostimportant benefit to most households, however, was the savings they realized by producingfood for their own households, whether vegetables, meat, dairy products, or honey. That wasclear from the focus groups with beneficiaries. The savings on food allowed households toallocate resources to other essential needs.

While generally successful, the project faced a number of challenges in implementation thatwere noted by stakeholders. We have taken those challenges into account in formulating theset of recommendations below.

6.2 Recommendations

6.2.1 Agriculture

For future agriculture interventions, we would recommend an increased focus on improving

marketing channels and market information through product exhibitions and other activitiesthat introduce producers to potential buyers. Many farmers stated that it would be useful for

them to have more information on demand from the Israeli market.

One model that could be explored would be to create a calendar for farmers comparingproduction and prices for various crops in Palestinian and Israeli markets at different times of

the year.2

This could be done for the Jordan Valley or South West Bank by an NGO such asOxfam or a partnership of NGOs and the PA Ministry of Agriculture.

Another idea for consideration would be to explore a compost project for commercialpurposes, potentially in partnership with one of the cooperatives. More research would beneeded on feasibility, but the Jordan Valley farmers repeatedly mentioned compost as apriority for the area.

6.2.2 Rabbit Raising and Rooftop Gardening

We believe that in future projects, the economic feasibility of rabbit raising should be

reevaluated in light of the rising costs of medication and fodder. Ideally, we would

recommend that beneficiaries be capable of procuring key inputs locally and at relatively lowcost, given the challenges raised by the closure of Gaza. That is the case with the rooftopgardening, which makes it more likely that those activities will be sustained.

If the rabbit raising is determined to be economically feasible and repeated, we would

recommend additional training for beneficiaries focused on practical elements of rabbit care,which many beneficiaries as well as Maan found to be lacking. The possibility should beconsidered of providing training of trainers for beneficiaries from the present project whohave been successful. They could then be contracted as trainers/guides for newbeneficiaries from their communities.

2For example, Action Against Hunger-Spain in partnership with Applied Research InstituteJerusalem (ARIJ)

has had some success with this approach in the Tubas region of the northern West Bank.


36/40

31

6.2.3 Cooperatives

Our assessment is that the projects work with cooperatives was one of its most successfulelements. Cooperative members requested additional trainings in technical areas including

food processing, packaging, storage, and quality control, as well as more advanced trainingsin management, administration, and finance. We believe that all of the above are worthwhile

investments with lasting impacts. As mentioned in the above section on agriculture,strengthening market linkages should another key area of attention for cooperatives. Bothmens and womens groups requested additional help in identifying new marketing

opportunities.

Other requests from beneficiaries included investment in the infrastructure of thecooperatives such as furniture, office equipment, and refrigerators to store the vegetables.We would recommend that any such assistance be made on a cost-share basis with thecooperative, and contingent on a sustainability plan with a simple cost/benefit analysis that

would outline the economic benefits to the cooperative of any such investments as well asclear provisions for paying for upkeep/maintenance.

6.2.4 Livestock

We have two primary recommendations for livestock activities. The first is that moreattention be given at the design stage of projects to the question of how beneficiaries will beable to pay for recurring expenses such as veterinary care and fodder. Many currentbeneficiaries appear to be facing significant hardship in those areas and are questioningwhether it makes sense for them to keep the additional livestock.

We do not object to beneficiaries selling the livestock, but it appears that short-term projectstargeting the poorest of the rural poor would be better off devising simpler interventions thatenable more efficient economic transfers. Alternatives to livestock could take the form ofcash-for-work activities on rural infrastructure or other public works projects, or providing

micro-grants for income-generating activities proposed by beneficiaries themselves, basedon a competitive selection process.

The second recommendation is to make sure that beneficiaries have a way of contacting

local partners for support. For example, participants from Masafer Bani Naim and Al Sanousaid that they were not aware of how to contact the UAWC. Those mechanisms should be

spelled out very clearly.

6.2.5 Project Monitoring and Evaluation

As noted above, although the projects monitoring efforts gathered much useful informationon project performance and impact on beneficiaries, the reports in many cases did not track

the specific target indicators outlined in the project proposal. As a result, we found itchallenging to evaluate how well the project achieved the three Expected Results, as definedby the specific indicators.

To avoid such confusion on future projects, we would recommend that the monitoring

reports be designed in a way that clearly indicates performance against the specific targetindicators in project proposals. If, during implementation, it becomes clear that those

indicators do not adequately reflect the reality on the ground and the aims of the project,they should be revised in consultation with the donor.


37/40

32

7. Annexes

Annex A: Evaluation MethodologyAnnex B: Lists of Meetings and Participants


38/40

ANNEX A: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Stage I: Planning and Preparation:

The preparatory stage included preparatory meetings between the Riyada evaluation teamand Oxfam management, as well as a comprehensive document review of relevant

background information on project implementation.

The document review will cover documents relevant to the scope of the consultancy and willinclude at least the following documents:

! Review the Operations history, location and implementation context;

! Review all Operations documentation, the proposal (single form), progress reports,

field reports and partners reports etc.;

! Review tracking forms of individual projects, if any;! Other related documents.

This stage assisted the evaluators in getting acquainted with the project, its rationale, itsprogress, main activities, main strengths and gaps. It also informed the process of designing

the different evaluation tools including guiding questions to key informant interviews andfocus groups.

Based on the findings, Riyada developed the various evaluation tools including the guiding

questions prepared for different interviews and focus group discussions. Questions weresubmitted to Oxfam for feedback and then finalized.

Stage II: Field Assessment:

The evaluation employed a participatory approach to the fieldwork in order to undertake anin-depth analysis of the Food Security Project & its implementation from both stakeholdersand beneficiaries perspectives. Activities included semi-structured interviews, focus groupdiscussions, group meetings and field observations.

Key informant interviews were held with the following stakeholders:

Oxfam GB management team in Jerusalem and Oxfam GB team in Jerusalem,

Hebron, and Gaza.

Local Partners: UWAC, ESDC and MA'AN;

The Operations field staff; Representatives of partner cooperatives.

Focus group discussions targeted the direct stakeholders and beneficiaries of each projectactivity. Focus groups discussed the strengths and weaknesses of project implementationand impacts on the beneficiaries.

In addition, two case studies were documented to reflect on the different components of theproject. A more in-depth interview and analysis of the project activities were conductedthrough the case studies. The findings complemented those of the focus groups andinformant interviews.


39/40

[Annex B removed]


40/40

Oxfam GB 2008

First published online by Oxfam GB in 2010.

This document is part of a collection of programme evaluations available from Oxfam GB inaccordance with its evaluation policy.

This document was originally written for internal accountability and learning purposes, ratherthan for external publication. The information included was correct to the evaluators bestknowledge at the date the evaluation took place. The views expressed in this report are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect Oxfams views.

The text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education,and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requeststhat all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in anyother circumstances, or for reuse in other publications, or for translation or adaptation,permission must be secured and a fee may be charged. Email [email protected]

For further information on the issues raised in this document email [email protected]

Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC 039042).Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.

www.oxfam.org.uk
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

evaluation of increasing food and livelihood security in the occupied palestinian territories

Documents